Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, C.J., CHALLA GUNARANJAN
Secy., Union Of India, Min. Of Mines, New Delhi – Appellant
Versus
H. B. Nadipi Lakshmanna – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
The present writ appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 01.09.2015, in W.P. No.18035 of 2015.
With a view to understand the background in the context of which the present controversy has arisen, it is necessary to give in brief the material facts as under:
An application came to be filed by the writ petitioner on 07.03.2005 for grant of mining lease for iron ore in respect of area measuring Ac.110 in Sy. Nos.725, 822 and 846 of Uyyalawada Village in Kurnool District. The application was processed by the officers of the Mines and Geology Department and a report prepared was forwarded to the State Government through the office of the Director of Mines and Geology on 08.03.2007 with a recommendation for grant of the mining rights.
2. The State Government took a decision to grant mining lease in favour of the writ petitioner for a period of twenty years subject to the approval of the Government of India, which was otherwise necessary under Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. A communication, dated 28.09.2007, was addressed to the Central Government to convey its approval.
The Central Gov
An application for a mining lease requires prior approval from the Central Government, and those received before the Amendment Act of 2015 become ineligible, except when restored under certain provis....
The court affirmed that a petitioner has a vested right to a mining lease under Section 10A(2)(c) of the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015, provided all conditions of prior approval are met.
Court affirmed that governmental compliance with judicial orders is mandatory, but eligibility for mining leases can be affected by subsequent legislative amendments.
The court ruled that a recommendation by the State does not constitute a vested right or letter of intent under the MMDR Act, and the amended provisions apply prospectively.
Legislative amendments to the Mines and Minerals Act render pending applications ineligible, emphasizing transparency and auction processes for mineral concessions, with no retrospective applicabilit....
Mining Lease approvals were revoked due to the petitioners' failure to comply with statutory requirements, rendering prior approvals void.
There cannot be a collateral challenge to an order by a respondent in a writ proceeding instituted by a petitioner for implementation of such order.
Point of law: An application for the renewal for a prospecting licence shall be disposed of by the State Government before the expiry of the period of prospecting licence and if the application is no....
The court ruled that amendments rendering pending applications ineligible violate constitutional rights, highlighting arbitrary treatment of applicants and the State's responsibility for delays.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
